DUP sources are confirming that the Tory/DUP deal will not be announced today because of the Grenfell Tower fire. And they say that 95% of it is already agreed. But they are playing down the suggestion that the final announcement will be postponed until next week.

It's probably not because of the fire, but because the "agreement" is complete shit and doesn't exist. The fire is just a convenient excuse.

However, if it is because of the fire ... it just happens to be in the very rich Kensington area of London that just elected a Labour MP based probably on the bad treatment of the many (not rich, not white, not Christian) tenants. The fire is just one example of the things that may have led to this result.

If the Conservatives are learning to be nicer, or at least more cautious, in marginal seats, that can only be good.

And just by the way, Theresa Mayhem's new chief of staff and long-time ally is Gavin Barwell ...

Quote:

Former Housing Minister Gavin Barwell faced criticism [over the Grenfell Tower fire] after it was revealed that he had delayed a fire safety review. A report into fire safety in tower blocks had been shelved for four years.

He looks like a bobble-head ...

And ... well this speaks for itself ...

Quote:

In 2015 Barwell won the election with a majority of just 165.[8]

...

Barwell's book, "How to Win a Marginal Seat: My Year Fighting for my Political Life", was published in March 2016.[9]

In the June 2017 election, Barwell lost his seat to Sarah Jones (Labour) by over 5,000 votes.[8]

The only time the Lib Dems mattered lately, they completely fucked it up. They ought to just join Labour.

On the other hand, if a Labour coalition including the Lib Dems is viable after the next election, and they insist on sticking around, for some reason, they ought to insist on voting reform being passed as a condition of coalition, not merely holding a referendum on it.

A switch to approval voting would prevent Conservatives from constantly taking advantage of vote splitting among Labour/Lib Dems/SNP/Greens/etc. It was foolish to try to get a concession on voting methods from the party that most benefits from plurality voting, but it might be possible to get it from Labour.

__________________The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

But I guess I am meant to infer that he is at least somewhat anti-gay? I obviously am not a fan of anti-gay politicians. But there was some vagueness in that article, so I couldn't quite tell what his views were. But if a gay member of the party is quitting a position over it (and presumably he has spoken to Farron personally) I guess there's probably something wrong there.

But the view of "we need to run as a third party so we can act as a spoiler enabling the Conservatives to win more seats" is probably more damaging given that Farron was never, ever going to be Prime Minister (and unlikely to be in government, and even if he were, unlikely to influence policy on LGBT rights).

The controversy was that his religion considered homosexual sex a sin. His position was that Christianity considers lots of things a sin, and it wasn't right to dictate that people follow his religion.

His voting record on LGBT matters was good.

In his letter, he resigns because of the 'suspicion' the public and media seem to have over his liberal principles, because of his faith.

I find myself siding with Farron on this one. He's right to resign, but only because people seem unable to believe someone can seperate their religious views from their policy making.

__________________The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner

On the other hand, if a Labour coalition including the Lib Dems is viable after the next election, and they insist on sticking around, for some reason, they ought to insist on voting reform being passed as a condition of coalition, not merely holding a referendum on it.

Then they let themselves be screwed over by the Tories.

Quote:

A switch to approval voting would prevent Conservatives from constantly taking advantage of vote splitting among Labour/Lib Dems/SNP/Greens/etc. It was foolish to try to get a concession on voting methods from the party that most benefits from plurality voting, but it might be possible to get it from Labour.

Approval voting? It was alternative voting or instant-runoff voting that was decided on in that referendum a few years back.

Unfortunately, advocates of alternative to FPTP were split, with supporters of proportional representation not being very enthusiastic about it.

If you are interested in implementations of alternative voting algorithms, I've created an archive of such implementations: VotingAlgs.zip I've most recently implemented a preference-vote version of "Majority Judgment". That required writing a weighted-median function.

Of random interest to Yanks, a Canadian province just had an even more tight election and if you're interested in the basic mechanics of a Commonwealth Parliament ot Legislature, you might find it interesting, as we're a bit further along in the process.

__________________The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner